On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:20 AM, David Both <dboth at millennium-technology.com> wrote:> +1 > > It can be quite annoying when the X console is changed from one Virtual > Console to another as happens with almost every release of CentOS and > Fedora. I would really like it to be always consistent at Console 7. And the > "real" system console should always be Console 1. > > I am OK with change, but this seems to be fairly random change with know > apparent advantage or benefit. > > It is a big deal to keep it consistent. That way I know what to tell > customers when they call and I have to talk them through a procedure over > the phone.Good luck with that... The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:> .............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by > people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people > using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they > would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version. * The dramatic upheaval in C7; * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly stable C6 product; all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction'). Happy New Year to all to everyone. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU.
On 12/28/14 20:52, Always Learning wrote:> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> .............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by >> people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people >> using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they >> would like to keep working the same way across upgrades. > > What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people > make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success > of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed > NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the > paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans > and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version. > > * The dramatic upheaval in C7; > * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; > * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly > stable C6 product; > > all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable > strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction'). > > Happy New Year to all to everyone. >Well said! I've been waiting since the C6.6 "upgrade" to get a kernel with the reported patch that fixes the web cam incompatibility that was introduced with the new C6.6 kernel. I would change distributions in a minute if there was a better choice. -- _ ?v? /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ****
On 29/12/14 01:52, Always Learning wrote:> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> .............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by >> people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people >> using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they >> would like to keep working the same way across upgrades. > > What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people > make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success > of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed > NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the > paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans > and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version. > > * The dramatic upheaval in C7; > * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; > * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly > stable C6 product; > > all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable > strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction'). > > Happy New Year to all to everyone. >The stability comes _within_ a product release. I don't think it's realistic to expect el7 to be the same as el6 or el5, otherwsie what's the point of the newer releases. You have 7 years of support / consistency (now 10 years). What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years?